1. Field Of The Invention
This invention relates generally to structural footing forms and footing drains and in particular, to a permanent concrete footing/foundation form having an integral drain. A permanent, in-situ footing/foundation form has diverse drainage means which, because of the permanence of the form, may serve as both inside-the-structure, as well as outside-the-structure drainage.
2. Background Information
It is the practice in the building industry to excavate and set up forms for the construction of concrete footings or foundations. The forms are comprised of a plurality of planks, of varying lengths, and are otherwise unremarkable. Most of the planks are made of seasoned wood and have dimensions of varying length, generally ranging from two inches by six inches to two inches by 12 inches. In some circumstances, the forms are made of metal, but are used in a fashion analogous to the plank usage. After a trench or excavation is prepared, the planks (or the steel forms) are set up to the dimensions of the desired footing/foundation. The planks are set on edge with two planks set in a standapart registry, so that generally smooth, planar surfaces face each other. After being set in place, the planks are generally constrained by the use of wood or metal stakes. After the footing/foundation form is firmly established, some form of restrainment, that is, a partition or anchoring device may be used to register one plank with its opposing member, thus restraining the ensemble against further movement. After completion of the entire form network, the concrete is generally poured, screeded so as to acquire a relatively smooth, bumpless surface and allowed to set and cure. After sufficient concrete hardening, the form, especially if composed of wood, is removed by a process which is as labor intensive as the initial form set-up. Irrespective of the cost of the wood planking, and it is significant enough not to be ignored, the primary reason for removing the forms and anchors (usually stakes) is that wood will, in most areas of the country, provide a haven and sustenance for wood boring and wood eating pests. Thus, removal of all wood, especially near the footing/foundation of these structures, is of paramount importance. Although there are metal form systems which are designed to remain permanently in place, by and large most are removed. Again, the same labor intensive activity is carried out.
After a footing/foundation has been constructed, a drainage means is generally provided by passing a continuous tile or perforated tubing about and contiguous to the footing/foundation, both inside and outside the periphery of that portion which will actually support the weight of the proposed structure. Inside tile is generally drained to a sump, while the outside often drains to a sewer or drywell. Like the setting or removal of the footing form, installation of the drainage feature is also costly and labor intensive. After the footing forms are removed, and before the structure floor is poured, a certain amount of retrenching must be accomplished to assure that the drainage tile is placed as close as possible to the footing and at the requisite depth. The drainage system is installed by hand and the quality of workmanship often varies with the experience of the worker, irrespective of the quality of the materials used. If construction has already started on the structure, there will be undoubtedly a sizeable amount of backfill and debris accumulated between the footing and the excavation walls. If such is the case, retrenching, prior to setting the drainage system, becomes more labor intensive since its removal may be accomplished only by hand shoveling.
Having spent a number of years in the building trades, and acquired a great deal of experience in the construction of footings, concrete flooring and drainage installation, I have developed ways and means to optimize many of the day-to-day tasks that those of us in the industry encounter. First, it seemed to me that the use of degradable materials, that is, those such as wood and other cellulose products that either decompose in the elements or are edible (or otherwise destroyed) by insects and similar pests is a choice controlled more by the initial low cost of the materials than the fact that their inherent degradability weakness necessitates a high degree of clean-up activity, which militates higher labor costs. Concurrently, it also seemed that the further expenditure of labor, to lay down a drainage system, had a concomitant increase in cost because the materials required for the drainage system must be permanent, in-situ devices which are non-degradable. Wanting to eliminate as much redundancy and labor cost as possible, I felt secondly that, if a footing/foundation form were to contain its own drainage conduit, or vice versa, there would be required but a singular installation operation, because the non-degradability of the conduit would demand that the form also be comprised of a permanent, lasting material. Extrapolating this line of reasoning further, I began to envision a footing/foundation form, used for molding concrete or similar plastic substances, that could be installed with its integral drainage system in much the same fashion as one would assemble the conventional plank-type concrete footing form. Relative to the conduit (drainage) feature, conventional around-the-corner means such as flexible ducting would be used or, if a rigid form member were to be made hollow, it could be made out of a material which, like its wood predecessor, could be cut, sawed or otherwise mitered to fit corners and joints, while still maintaining the continuity of the drainage system. With the general idea having taken shape, I began a search of the trade literature and the teachings in other construction publications.
After an exhaustive search of building trade literature and in the United States Patent and Trademark Office patent files, I determined that teachings of a compound footing form-drainage device seem either vague or lacking in the attributes of my invention. I first sought footing/ foundation forms that carried with them (integrally) some form of venting or drainage; and alternately, I sought a drainage system that could somehow act as a concrete form. In all of the teachings or advertisements that I encountered, only a few appeared to even remotely approximate my concept. One of these is a patent issued to Frati in July 1972, U.S. Pat. No. 3,676,967, which is entitled "Forms For Concrete Wall Construction". Frati teaches a system of rectangular sheets, made of galvanized metal pans, that are assembled to construct wall forms at the construction site. Notwithstanding the teaching of a wall form, the Frati sheets are permanent, that is not degradable, and after use in-situ for construction of the wall, they are allowed to remain permanently affixed to the sides of the concrete core. Furthermore, Frati teaches a plurality of spaced vertical ribs projecting outwardly (as a series of partitions) from the inward-facing surfaces of each of the rectangular sheets, or pans. Finally, he teaches a passage of an air vent or a cableway through the core. Although certainly not a drainage feature, it may nevertheless be characterized as a conduit means passing through the wall itself, but it is not integral with the rectangular sheet, or pan structure; it must be emplaced after the form is set up. A second patent, most notable for the currency of its issue Oct. 1987, was that issued to Millman, U.S. Pat. No. 4,702,048, entitled "Bubble Relief Form For Concrete". Although not a form in the sense which I have now described generally, Millman teaches a light-weight, thermal plastic bubble insulation form for cast in-situ concrete slabs. He distinctly avoids calling the drainage feature, i.e., the bubble network, a concrete form because he specifically denotes another element, distinct from the bubble form, as the concrete "side forms". Millman is mentioned here because, although he does not contemplate or even intimate my invention, his teaching describes a drainage system which maintains permanent and intimate contact with the poured concrete. Another group of patents, those issued to Waller, U.S. Pat. No. 4,773,195, Crites, U.S. Pat. No. 4,757,651 and Freese, U.S. Pat. No. 4,840,515 are interesting teachings but, like the Frati and Millman disclosures, fall significantly short of my invention. Waller, for a "Method and Apparatus for Forming a Sluiceway Adjacent a Wall and Cement Floor", nevertheless teaches a drainage system which is, by the patentee's teaching, either degradable or removable. It is a conduit system which is basically applied to the inner wall of a concrete structure, not the footing, and allowed to serve as a temporary form for the base floor. Then, once the floor is set, the Waller form is removed or allowed to disintegrate, leaving a sluiceway adjacent the floor and wall juncture. It appears from a thorough reading of this patent that, in the situations I have contemplated for using my invention, the Waller device would still require a footing and external foundation drainage. Further, my experience warns me that the material chosen by Waller, although not conclusively defined, would nontheless be a detriment if allowed to remain in place. Most biodegradable or otherwise decomposable materials generally serve as attractions to insects, bugs or other vermin. Thus, in the final analysis, Waller's teachings would serve me no better than Milliman's; although admittedly, the cross section of his "L" shaped device appears to take on the general morphology of one of my alternate embodiments. Crites, is his "Wall System" teaches a baseboard type or device which is generally "C" shaped and is positioned adjacent the wall bas, just above a footing. The general "C" shape allows it to be fixed to the wall and the poured concrete floor to abut it. Crites further places a series of apertures aligned near the footing of the wall so as to drain fluid that might pass through the wall and accumulate in the hollow of the "C" chamber of his device. Thereafter, the water is allowed to collect and be conveyed via auxiliary tubing to a conventional tile drain located at the base of the footing. Crites, it appears, has taken the Waller idea and moved a step further by joining his permanent "sliceway" directly to an in-situ permanent footing drain system.
Final to my search for relevant disclosures are the patents issued to Harriett, U.S. Pat. No. 4,733,989 for "Self-healing Bentonite Sheet Material Composite Drainage Structure" and Freese, U.S. Pat. No. 4,840,515 for "Subterranean Drain". Harriett, the first to issue in Mar. 1988, relates to a layered water sealing article that includes a layer of flexible sheet material adhered to a layer of a composition comprising a non-hydrated, water-swellable clay, intimately contacted with a polypropene, polybutene (or mixtures) which is used as a water barrier. The clay layer is used to adhere to a wall, conduit, floor, etc. or other structure to be protected from water contact. In essence, Harriett provides a flexible, essentially hollow strip of material which, when adhered to a wall, will absorb and conduct drainage water through its structure to a conventional perforated drain pipe. The Freese patent, insofar as it discloses apparatus bearing a relevance to mine, varies little from the Harriett teaching. Furthermore, Freese also terminates the base of his subterranean drain with what he terms "the drain pipe". Thus, neither Harriett nor Freese teach a footing/foundation form and drain which has the dual purpose of providing a permanent poured concrete retainment while simultaneoulsy affording permanent footing drainage means.
Thus, in all of the patents and literature searched and found, I located neither a discrete disclosure of my invention, nor was I able to determine how I could combine any of the features provided by the aforementioned patentees to acquire a "self-draining mold" to suit my immediate needs. Although I could contemplate various devides such as the rigidifying of Freese or Harriett, the thickening and choosing of alternative materials for Waller, or the integration and incorporation of a free standing feature in Crites or Millman, it became readialy apparent that, since none of these inventors conceived, suggested or even implied such modifications, my general concept and embodiment of the instant invention were novel and certainly not apparent to those in the industry or the building trades.